[...] This doesn't only apply to monsters. Moon Druids and anyone who uses Polymorph or Shapechange will fall under these rules. It is important because if a monster attack like a Moon Druids is defined as Unarmed Strike than they will scale with gear like all the other classes. Otherwise they are punished for their subclass choice. [...]
That's a great point. Plus, some class changes focus on improving Unarmed Strikes
This is a true statement unless an exception is given.
There are two problems:
When a creature uses an action in its stat block other than multiattack, there is nothing stating it is using the attack action at all.
When a creature uses multiattack, the multiattack text is an exception.
This is what I thought initially too.
However, reading the monster manual further ...
"Multiattack
Some creatures can make more than one attack when they take the Attack action. Such creatures have the Multiattack entry in the “Actions” section of their stat block. This entry details the attacks a creature can make, as well as any additional abilities it can use, as part of the Attack action."
Multiattack specifically references the Attack action. It also states that it describes what some creatures can do if they have more than ONE attack when they take the Attack action. This statement implies that even when taking a single Action from the stat block the monster is still taking the Attack action even if there is only one attack.
In addition, preceding this entry:
"Attack Notation
The entry for a monster’s attack identifies whether the attack is a melee or a ranged attack and then provides the attack roll’s bonus, its reach or range, and what happens on a hit. An attack is against one target unless its entry says otherwise. For details on different kinds of attacks, see the Player’s Handbook."
The monster stat block details how monster "attacks" are described in each entry. The statement under Multiattack implies that these attacks are executed using the Attack action (not a special action with an unusual name).
On top of that the link to "different kinds of attacks" links to the section on Making an Attack in the PHB.
"Making an Attack
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack. Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack. Whether you strike with a Melee weapon, fire a Ranged weapon, or make an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has the following structure:"
Making an attack also specifically references taking the Attack action.
As a result, one can conclude that any monster stat block entry that is described using the monster "Attack notation" is an attack that is resolved by taking the "Attack action" even when Multiattack is not referenced.
In addition, the 2024 rules also seem to clarify that Multiattack is NOT a distinct action but is a description of additional things the creature can do when they take the Attack action. So anything that would trigger off a creature taking an Attack action would also trigger on Multiattack.
Finally, we add in the definition of the Attack action from the glossary:
"Attack [Action]
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike."
Which is really where the problem lies in terms of defining the rules. The rules cited above indicate that a creature in the monster manual IS taking the Attack action whenever they execute any action that includes an attack roll. So - either monsters have an implicit exception that they do not need to make attacks with a weapon or an unarmed strike ... which the rules do not say ... or the monster's attacks ARE considered either a weapon or an unarmed strike for the purposes of the Attack action ... which the rules ALSO do not state. However, since monsters DO take the Attack action to resolve their attacks ... then presumably these attacks ARE considered either weapon or unarmed strikes since they DO take the Attack action.
If monster stat block attacks ARE considered attacks with a weapon or an unarmed strike (it doesn't matter which) when they take the Attack action then they would also be eligible for use in Opportunity Attacks.
The challenge is that these statements are IMPLIED by the fact that monster attacks use the Attack action which has a very limited glossary definition - meaning that the monster attacks MUST be either weapons or unarmed strikes if they use the Attack action.
However, this is further constrained by the glossary definitions of both weapon attack and unarmed strike. Monster attacks do NOT fit either of the definitions of either weapon or unarmed strike in the glossary because these definitions are very narrow.
As a result we have a conflict in interpreting RAW - folks who look at it from the monster manual side and the Attack action state that monster attacks must be considered either weapon or unarmed strikes since the monster DOES take the Attack action. Folks who look at it from the glossary side say that monster attacks do NOT fit the very limited descriptions in the PHB of either weapon or unarmed strikes and so have to use the Damage definition of unarmed strike found in the glossary if they want to make an opportunity attack.
Basically, RAW includes an inherent contradiction and it can be argued either way for as long as we like and will never be resolved since the rules fairly clearly or implicitly state both.
A simple statement that monster attacks are considered weapon or unarmed strikes would resolve the issue. Alternatively, a statement that monster melee attacks can be used to make opportunity attacks would also resolve the issue. Until that is resolved though, both sides can argue and both are pretty much correct from the perspective of the rules they are citing.
all creatures- may make an attack of opportunity. What about “constructs” that don’t specifically have a reaction listed for AoOs?
Most creature stat blocks don't specifically list a reaction for attacks of opportunity. This is because all creatures can make opportunity attacks, including constructs, which are creatures.
all creatures- may make an attack of opportunity. What about “constructs” that don’t specifically have a reaction listed for AoOs?
Most creature stat blocks don't specifically list a reaction for attacks of opportunity. This is because all creatures can make opportunity attacks, including constructs, which are creatures.
Ah yes. I see where I have gone wrong with constructs now being considered creatures.
IMHO, constructs are actually objects. As said before, an Implication in the rules tends to lead a person towards a certain conclusion. Based on just the initial design of 2014 5e.
For constructs they can’t benefit from a paladins lay on hands, a necro wizards grim harvest doesn’t benefit from defeating a construct, anti-Toxin doesn’t help a construct, and the 5th level spell Animate Object basically says it turns objects into creatures only for the duration of the spell’s duration.
Now can that object / construct take an attack of opportunity as a reaction, sure. as part of the aforementioned spell the “artificial creature” has melee attacks that are limited to the constructs self range/reach and are DM limited in damage type ( B, P, or S)
Blight doesn’t effect a construct, nor does Cure Wounds, or any healing spells, Mending repairs constructs and could be considered a means of healing an object, and a host of other things that imply that a construct is not a creature but an object.
It’s really a matter of DM fiat in which a construct can be considered as a creature, but for this debate constructs can take Attacks of Opportunity based on the ability to defend itself and the ability to attack on command in a manner that can allow it.
Of course over the years, things have been rewritten and said that might have changed certain aspects, but fundamentally a construct is still object.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Constructs are explicitly a creature type in both 2014 and 2024 versions of 5e. We don't need to worry about what the rules imply about whether they're creatures when the rules explicitly say they're creatures.
If they were objects, and not creatures, it wouldn't be necessary for a spell like Blight to explicitly say that it doesn't affect them, since the spell specifically requires targeting a creature.
IMHO, constructs are actually objects. As said before, an Implication in the rules tends to lead a person towards a certain conclusion. Based on just the initial design of 2014 5e.
For constructs they can’t benefit from a paladins lay on hands, a necro wizards grim harvest doesn’t benefit from defeating a construct, anti-Toxin doesn’t help a construct, and the 5th level spell Animate Object basically says it turns objects into creatures only for the duration of the spell’s duration.
Now can that object / construct take an attack of opportunity as a reaction, sure. as part of the aforementioned spell the “artificial creature” has melee attacks that are limited to the constructs self range/reach and are DM limited in damage type ( B, P, or S)
Blight doesn’t effect a construct, nor does Cure Wounds, or any healing spells, Mending repairs constructs and could be considered a means of healing an object, and a host of other things that imply that a construct is not a creature but an object.
It’s really a matter of DM fiat in which a construct can be considered as a creature, but for this debate constructs can take Attacks of Opportunity based on the ability to defend itself and the ability to attack on command in a manner that can allow it.
Of course over the years, things have been rewritten and said that might have changed certain aspects, but fundamentally a construct is still object.
This is incorrect. In 5e (2014 or 2024), constructs are a type of creature. Here are the rules citations from the 2014 monster manual:
"What Is a Monster?
A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed."
Then in the section on monster types:
"Type
A monster’s type speaks to its fundamental nature. Certain spells, magic items, class features, and other effects in the game interact in special ways with creaturesof a particular type."
Emphasis on "creatures of a particular type. Then we find the entry for the constuct creature type.
"Constructs are made, not born. Some are programmed by their creators to follow a simple set of instructions, while others are imbued with sentience and capable of independent thought. Golems are the iconic constructs. Many creatures native to the outer plane of Mechanus, such as modrons, are constructs shaped from the raw material of the plane by the will of more powerful creatures."
Monsters are creatures. Monsters are split into different types of creatures so that different rules can be applied to each. A "Construct" is a type of creature and is NOT an object.
This has not changed since the original printing of the 2014 monster manual. Constructs have ALWAYS been creatures.
As a result, one can conclude that any monster stat block entry that is described using the monster "Attack notation" is an attack that is resolved by taking the "Attack action" even when Multiattack is not referenced.
See above. No, nothing of the sort can be concluded.
Which is really where the problem lies in terms of defining the rules. The rules cited above indicate that a creature in the monster manual IS taking the Attack action whenever they execute any action that includes an attack roll. So - either monsters have an implicit exception that they do not need to make attacks with a weapon or an unarmed strike ... which the rules do not say
There's no implicit exception. There's an explicit exception: if an action entry exists in a stat block, the monster is allowed to do it.
IMHO, constructs are actually objects. As said before, an Implication in the rules tends to lead a person towards a certain conclusion. Based on just the initial design of 2014 5e.
For constructs they can’t benefit from a paladins lay on hands, a necro wizards grim harvest doesn’t benefit from defeating a construct, anti-Toxin doesn’t help a construct, and the 5th level spell Animate Object basically says it turns objects into creatures only for the duration of the spell’s duration.
Now can that object / construct take an attack of opportunity as a reaction, sure. as part of the aforementioned spell the “artificial creature” has melee attacks that are limited to the constructs self range/reach and are DM limited in damage type ( B, P, or S)
Blight doesn’t effect a construct, nor does Cure Wounds, or any healing spells, Mending repairs constructs and could be considered a means of healing an object, and a host of other things that imply that a construct is not a creature but an object.
It’s really a matter of DM fiat in which a construct can be considered as a creature, but for this debate constructs can take Attacks of Opportunity based on the ability to defend itself and the ability to attack on command in a manner that can allow it.
Of course over the years, things have been rewritten and said that might have changed certain aspects, but fundamentally a construct is still object.
This is incorrect. In 5e (2014 or 2024), constructs are a type of creature. Here are the rules citations from the 2014 monster manual:
"What Is a Monster?
A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed."
Then in the section on monster types:
"Type
A monster’s type speaks to its fundamental nature. Certain spells, magic items, class features, and other effects in the game interact in special ways with creaturesof a particular type."
Emphasis on "creatures of a particular type. Then we find the entry for the constuct creature type.
"Constructs are made, not born. Some are programmed by their creators to follow a simple set of instructions, while others are imbued with sentience and capable of independent thought. Golems are the iconic constructs. Many creatures native to the outer plane of Mechanus, such as modrons, are constructs shaped from the raw material of the plane by the will of more powerful creatures."
Monsters are creatures. Monsters are split into different types of creatures so that different rules can be applied to each. A "Construct" is a type of creature and is NOT an object.
This has not changed since the original printing of the 2014 monster manual. Constructs have ALWAYS been creatures.
Nothing in the statement in the monster manual says Constructs are creatures, only that they are made, not born. And as you pointed out, nothing since then has actually changed that, possibly except Warforged, but exceptions have been made.
[ Edit: The game includes the following monster types, which have no rules of their own.]
So to say an individual is incorrect on the premise of fallacy of logic is not exactly correct in and of itself.
To quote another, a construct is a Monster, but not all Monsters are constructs. ( is it easier to say constructs are creatures for ease of use and rules adjudicating sure, but that is an incorrect assumption that has more evidence that constructs are objects than actual living creatures. [ and is subject to a number of other debates not related. ])
As to constructs being able to make an Attack of Opportunity, that is part of the design of constructs that allow the creation to defend itself when not commanded explicitly.
So sorry but I personally don’t see anything that makes Constructs anything more than magical objects that can do whatever a DM allows.
We shall agree to disagree, and thats fine. But the Rules clearly don’t state a construct is a creature and makes it implied within the rules that a construct does not benefit the same as a living creature does.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Every creature, including every player character, has a tag in the rules that identifies the type of creature it is. Most player characters are of the Humanoid type. These are the game’s creature types:
Every creature, including every player character, has a tag in the rules that identifies the type of creature it is. Most player characters are of the Humanoid type. These are the game’s creature types:
Any being in the game, including a player’s character, is a creature. See also “Creature Type.”
And if the word Creature was replaced with the word Monster, would you still consider a Construct a Creature? As I previously said we can agree to disagree, but if the Monster Manual has the word creature replaced by the word Monster, would people be so quick to say a Construct is a Creature?
Path of least resistance is usually the most powerful Mandala Effect in logic, a simple change of word can make preconceived notions obsolete.
And BtW, the Monster Manual is the largest collection of Exceptions to the Rules in the game, and that should be obvious from this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
[...] And if the word Creature was replaced with the word Monster, would you still consider a Construct a Creature? As I previously said we can agree to disagree, but if the Monster Manual has the word creature replaced by the word Monster, would people be so quick to say a Construct is a Creature?
Monster in the Rules Glossary also says it's a creature, just controlled by the DM:
And if the word Creature was replaced with the word Monster, would you still consider a Construct a Creature?
In 5e, the fundamental difference between creature and object is that a creature can take actions and an object cannot. And yes, constructs are creatures.
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack. Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack.
So, monsters can use the actions in their stat blocks to attack, with no need to use the attack action.
Yep. I agree "Some other actions" could be referring to monster stat block actions allowing attacks.
However, we are still left with Multiattack saying "Some creatures can make more than one attack when they take the Attack action." ... if monsters aren't making attacks from their stat block by taking the Attack action then there would be no reason to state that some creatures can take more than one Attack when making the Attack action since they would never be taking the Attack action - they would take an action from their stat block or the Multiattack action.
This would tend to imply that at least someone thought monsters used the Attack action when making attacks.
Personally, I think the rules need to be clarified. I know which rules I plan to use when running a game ...
I'd allow monsters to use any melee attack in their stat block for opportunity attacks ... which clearly runs into some type of homebrew territory since nothing limits the monsters to using only melee attacks for op attacks - making it clearly a house rule.
However, I prefer that to having every monster that has some sort of physical body roll 1+str damage with an attack based on strength to try to conform to the definition of unarmed strike in the PHB. Some creatures are incorporeal - where this doesn't make sense. Others might lack the physical ability to execute an unarmed strike from the PHB and in any case, the effect of a 1+str attack is often negligible and presents no deterrence to a character risking an opportunity attack. So - I certainly won't be playing that way and as far as I know, RAI, that is not the intent.
However, if you really think that the rules mean for the game to played such that monsters only make opportunity attacks using 1+str for damage, then it is your game and you can play it as you see fit :)
[...] And if the word Creature was replaced with the word Monster, would you still consider a Construct a Creature? As I previously said we can agree to disagree, but if the Monster Manual has the word creature replaced by the word Monster, would people be so quick to say a Construct is a Creature?
Monster in the Rules Glossary also says it's a creature, just controlled by the DM:
A monster is a creature controlled by the DM, even if the creature is benevolent. See also “Creature” and “NPC.”
EDIT: format.
By 2024 definition, whereas previously the original context was that Constructs were Objects and not Creatures or PC’s. Again this is the Monster Manual’s specific exceptions becoming the general norm by way of logic fallacy for the express purpose of ease of play.
The very rules that govern Constructs are different than the rules that govern general creatures. Agree to disagree, sorry.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack. Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack.
So, monsters can use the actions in their stat blocks to attack, with no need to use the attack action.
We all know this isn't true. Multiattack isn't an action. Rather, it explicitly modifies the Attack action; which the monster must take to use. The "Actions" in a monster's stat block aren't necessarily actions unto themselves, but they are all things which the monster can do with its Action. Casting a spell is a Magic action. A Mage would use that for it's Spellcasting, Misty Step, or Protective Magic.
We're also reliant on the notation of those entries for specific attacks, like the Greatsword and Heavy Crossbow of a Knight. Again, they aren't actions unto themselves. They're attacks with weapons. Weapons the players can take from a corpse.
[...] And if the word Creature was replaced with the word Monster, would you still consider a Construct a Creature? As I previously said we can agree to disagree, but if the Monster Manual has the word creature replaced by the word Monster, would people be so quick to say a Construct is a Creature?
Monster in the Rules Glossary also says it's a creature, just controlled by the DM:
A monster is a creature controlled by the DM, even if the creature is benevolent. See also “Creature” and “NPC.”
EDIT: format.
By 2024 definition, whereas previously the original context was that Constructs were Objects and not Creatures or PC’s. Again this is the Monster Manual’s specific exceptions becoming the general norm by way of logic fallacy for the express purpose of ease of play.
The very rules that govern Constructs are different than the rules that govern general creatures. Agree to disagree, sorry.
As off-topic as this is, I'll entertain it for the time being.
Construct has been a Creature Type since in the year of our Lord 2000, so what previous or original context are you referring to?
Point us to these rules you say govern them differently than general creatures.
I'd allow monsters to use any melee attack in their stat block for opportunity attacks ... which clearly runs into some type of homebrew territory since nothing limits the monsters to using only melee attacks for op attacks - making it clearly a house rule.
I'd check the Rules Glossary, if I were you. An Opportunity Attack is explicitly limited to melee attacks. For a ranged attack to be made, something else must give it an exception.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's a great point. Plus, some class changes focus on improving Unarmed Strikes
This is what I thought initially too.
However, reading the monster manual further ...
"Multiattack
Some creatures can make more than one attack when they take the Attack action. Such creatures have the Multiattack entry in the “Actions” section of their stat block. This entry details the attacks a creature can make, as well as any additional abilities it can use, as part of the Attack action."
Multiattack specifically references the Attack action. It also states that it describes what some creatures can do if they have more than ONE attack when they take the Attack action. This statement implies that even when taking a single Action from the stat block the monster is still taking the Attack action even if there is only one attack.
In addition, preceding this entry:
"Attack Notation
The entry for a monster’s attack identifies whether the attack is a melee or a ranged attack and then provides the attack roll’s bonus, its reach or range, and what happens on a hit. An attack is against one target unless its entry says otherwise. For details on different kinds of attacks, see the Player’s Handbook."
The monster stat block details how monster "attacks" are described in each entry. The statement under Multiattack implies that these attacks are executed using the Attack action (not a special action with an unusual name).
On top of that the link to "different kinds of attacks" links to the section on Making an Attack in the PHB.
"Making an Attack
When you take the Attack action, you make an attack. Some other actions, Bonus Actions, and Reactions also let you make an attack. Whether you strike with a Melee weapon, fire a Ranged weapon, or make an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has the following structure:"
Making an attack also specifically references taking the Attack action.
As a result, one can conclude that any monster stat block entry that is described using the monster "Attack notation" is an attack that is resolved by taking the "Attack action" even when Multiattack is not referenced.
In addition, the 2024 rules also seem to clarify that Multiattack is NOT a distinct action but is a description of additional things the creature can do when they take the Attack action. So anything that would trigger off a creature taking an Attack action would also trigger on Multiattack.
Finally, we add in the definition of the Attack action from the glossary:
"Attack [Action]
When you take the Attack action, you can make one attack roll with a weapon or an Unarmed Strike."
Which is really where the problem lies in terms of defining the rules. The rules cited above indicate that a creature in the monster manual IS taking the Attack action whenever they execute any action that includes an attack roll. So - either monsters have an implicit exception that they do not need to make attacks with a weapon or an unarmed strike ... which the rules do not say ... or the monster's attacks ARE considered either a weapon or an unarmed strike for the purposes of the Attack action ... which the rules ALSO do not state. However, since monsters DO take the Attack action to resolve their attacks ... then presumably these attacks ARE considered either weapon or unarmed strikes since they DO take the Attack action.
If monster stat block attacks ARE considered attacks with a weapon or an unarmed strike (it doesn't matter which) when they take the Attack action then they would also be eligible for use in Opportunity Attacks.
The challenge is that these statements are IMPLIED by the fact that monster attacks use the Attack action which has a very limited glossary definition - meaning that the monster attacks MUST be either weapons or unarmed strikes if they use the Attack action.
However, this is further constrained by the glossary definitions of both weapon attack and unarmed strike. Monster attacks do NOT fit either of the definitions of either weapon or unarmed strike in the glossary because these definitions are very narrow.
As a result we have a conflict in interpreting RAW - folks who look at it from the monster manual side and the Attack action state that monster attacks must be considered either weapon or unarmed strikes since the monster DOES take the Attack action. Folks who look at it from the glossary side say that monster attacks do NOT fit the very limited descriptions in the PHB of either weapon or unarmed strikes and so have to use the Damage definition of unarmed strike found in the glossary if they want to make an opportunity attack.
Basically, RAW includes an inherent contradiction and it can be argued either way for as long as we like and will never be resolved since the rules fairly clearly or implicitly state both.
A simple statement that monster attacks are considered weapon or unarmed strikes would resolve the issue. Alternatively, a statement that monster melee attacks can be used to make opportunity attacks would also resolve the issue. Until that is resolved though, both sides can argue and both are pretty much correct from the perspective of the rules they are citing.
To the OPs point, and to the PHB.
all creatures- may make an attack of opportunity. What about “constructs” that don’t specifically have a reaction listed for AoOs?
Blank
Most creature stat blocks don't specifically list a reaction for attacks of opportunity. This is because all creatures can make opportunity attacks, including constructs, which are creatures.
pronouns: he/she/they
Ah yes. I see where I have gone wrong with constructs now being considered creatures.
Blank
Constructs have always been considered creatures.
IMHO, constructs are actually objects. As said before, an Implication in the rules tends to lead a person towards a certain conclusion. Based on just the initial design of 2014 5e.
For constructs they can’t benefit from a paladins lay on hands, a necro wizards grim harvest doesn’t benefit from defeating a construct, anti-Toxin doesn’t help a construct, and the 5th level spell Animate Object basically says it turns objects into creatures only for the duration of the spell’s duration.
Now can that object / construct take an attack of opportunity as a reaction, sure. as part of the aforementioned spell the “artificial creature” has melee attacks that are limited to the constructs self range/reach and are DM limited in damage type ( B, P, or S)
Blight doesn’t effect a construct, nor does Cure Wounds, or any healing spells, Mending repairs constructs and could be considered a means of healing an object, and a host of other things that imply that a construct is not a creature but an object.
It’s really a matter of DM fiat in which a construct can be considered as a creature, but for this debate constructs can take Attacks of Opportunity based on the ability to defend itself and the ability to attack on command in a manner that can allow it.
Of course over the years, things have been rewritten and said that might have changed certain aspects, but fundamentally a construct is still object.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Constructs are explicitly a creature type in both 2014 and 2024 versions of 5e. We don't need to worry about what the rules imply about whether they're creatures when the rules explicitly say they're creatures.
If they were objects, and not creatures, it wouldn't be necessary for a spell like Blight to explicitly say that it doesn't affect them, since the spell specifically requires targeting a creature.
pronouns: he/she/they
This is incorrect. In 5e (2014 or 2024), constructs are a type of creature. Here are the rules citations from the 2014 monster manual:
"What Is a Monster?
A monster is defined as any creature that can be interacted with and potentially fought and killed."
Then in the section on monster types:
"Type
A monster’s type speaks to its fundamental nature. Certain spells, magic items, class features, and other effects in the game interact in special ways with creatures of a particular type."
Emphasis on "creatures of a particular type. Then we find the entry for the constuct creature type.
"Constructs are made, not born. Some are programmed by their creators to follow a simple set of instructions, while others are imbued with sentience and capable of independent thought. Golems are the iconic constructs. Many creatures native to the outer plane of Mechanus, such as modrons, are constructs shaped from the raw material of the plane by the will of more powerful creatures."
Monsters are creatures. Monsters are split into different types of creatures so that different rules can be applied to each. A "Construct" is a type of creature and is NOT an object.
This has not changed since the original printing of the 2014 monster manual. Constructs have ALWAYS been creatures.
So, monsters can use the actions in their stat blocks to attack, with no need to use the attack action.
See above. No, nothing of the sort can be concluded.
There's no implicit exception. There's an explicit exception: if an action entry exists in a stat block, the monster is allowed to do it.
Nothing in the statement in the monster manual says Constructs are creatures, only that they are made, not born. And as you pointed out, nothing since then has actually changed that, possibly except Warforged, but exceptions have been made.
[ Edit: The game includes the following monster types, which have no rules of their own.]
So to say an individual is incorrect on the premise of fallacy of logic is not exactly correct in and of itself.
To quote another, a construct is a Monster, but not all Monsters are constructs. ( is it easier to say constructs are creatures for ease of use and rules adjudicating sure, but that is an incorrect assumption that has more evidence that constructs are objects than actual living creatures. [ and is subject to a number of other debates not related. ])
As to constructs being able to make an Attack of Opportunity, that is part of the design of constructs that allow the creation to defend itself when not commanded explicitly.
So sorry but I personally don’t see anything that makes Constructs anything more than magical objects that can do whatever a DM allows.
We shall agree to disagree, and thats fine. But the Rules clearly don’t state a construct is a creature and makes it implied within the rules that a construct does not benefit the same as a living creature does.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
As others said, a Construct is a creature, and it's defined as such in the Rules Glossary:
EDIT:
And if the word Creature was replaced with the word Monster, would you still consider a Construct a Creature?
As I previously said we can agree to disagree, but if the Monster Manual has the word creature replaced by the word Monster, would people be so quick to say a Construct is a Creature?
Path of least resistance is usually the most powerful Mandala Effect in logic, a simple change of word can make preconceived notions obsolete.
And BtW, the Monster Manual is the largest collection of Exceptions to the Rules in the game, and that should be obvious from this thread.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
Monster in the Rules Glossary also says it's a creature, just controlled by the DM:
EDIT: format.
In 5e, the fundamental difference between creature and object is that a creature can take actions and an object cannot. And yes, constructs are creatures.
Yep. I agree "Some other actions" could be referring to monster stat block actions allowing attacks.
However, we are still left with Multiattack saying "Some creatures can make more than one attack when they take the Attack action." ... if monsters aren't making attacks from their stat block by taking the Attack action then there would be no reason to state that some creatures can take more than one Attack when making the Attack action since they would never be taking the Attack action - they would take an action from their stat block or the Multiattack action.
This would tend to imply that at least someone thought monsters used the Attack action when making attacks.
Personally, I think the rules need to be clarified. I know which rules I plan to use when running a game ...
I'd allow monsters to use any melee attack in their stat block for opportunity attacks ... which clearly runs into some type of homebrew territory since nothing limits the monsters to using only melee attacks for op attacks - making it clearly a house rule.
However, I prefer that to having every monster that has some sort of physical body roll 1+str damage with an attack based on strength to try to conform to the definition of unarmed strike in the PHB. Some creatures are incorporeal - where this doesn't make sense. Others might lack the physical ability to execute an unarmed strike from the PHB and in any case, the effect of a 1+str attack is often negligible and presents no deterrence to a character risking an opportunity attack. So - I certainly won't be playing that way and as far as I know, RAI, that is not the intent.
However, if you really think that the rules mean for the game to played such that monsters only make opportunity attacks using 1+str for damage, then it is your game and you can play it as you see fit :)
By 2024 definition, whereas previously the original context was that Constructs were Objects and not Creatures or PC’s. Again this is the Monster Manual’s specific exceptions becoming the general norm by way of logic fallacy for the express purpose of ease of play.
The very rules that govern Constructs are different than the rules that govern general creatures.
Agree to disagree, sorry.
" Darkvision doesn’t work in Magical darkness, and if something is magical, Never Trust it acts the same way as a non-magical version of that same thing!”- Discotech Mage over a cup of joe.
We all know this isn't true. Multiattack isn't an action. Rather, it explicitly modifies the Attack action; which the monster must take to use. The "Actions" in a monster's stat block aren't necessarily actions unto themselves, but they are all things which the monster can do with its Action. Casting a spell is a Magic action. A Mage would use that for it's Spellcasting, Misty Step, or Protective Magic.
We're also reliant on the notation of those entries for specific attacks, like the Greatsword and Heavy Crossbow of a Knight. Again, they aren't actions unto themselves. They're attacks with weapons. Weapons the players can take from a corpse.
(Wow, that got dark for a second.)
As off-topic as this is, I'll entertain it for the time being.
Construct has been a Creature Type since in the year of our Lord 2000, so what previous or original context are you referring to?
Point us to these rules you say govern them differently than general creatures.
I'd check the Rules Glossary, if I were you. An Opportunity Attack is explicitly limited to melee attacks. For a ranged attack to be made, something else must give it an exception.